Archive for the 'American Left' Category

Those Pesky Clinton Profits (what a country)

hillary-2.jpg  Oops, Hillary Clinton sold some stock recently that could cause her problems during the campaign if she had continued to hold those shares.  Wow, only in America is it a crime to own a particular stock when you are running for President but not to own that stock when you have merely declared your intentions to run for the nomination.  Lets see what she owned in part:

NewsCorp (Fox News)   Satan Himself

Biogen                             Big Pharmaceutical

Johnson & Johnson         Big Pharmaceutical

Amgen                             Big Pharmaceutical

Pfizer                               Big Pharmaceutical

Glaxo Smith Kline            Big Pharmaceutical

Wall Mart                        The Anti-Christ with Employee Abuses

These are creating millions in Capital Gains that will carry substantial Capital Gains Taxes that she has been able to avoid by not selling them previous to this [which is a complaint of many on the left which feel that “unrealized gains” (those only on paper not cash) should be taxes].  One thing from this is that now she will learn what the cost of Capital Gains Taxes are to her portfolio and hence their small share of contribution to economic growth in the country. Too bad she didn’t own some “Big Oil” since she has complained about them as much as she did in the 1990’s about the immoral profits of Big Pharmaceutical (just before she tapped into those profits after Bill left office).

At least she didn’t own any Halliburton.  But if Cheney is still guilty because he previously owned Halliburton shares (which he sold to avoid similar conflict of interest charges) isn’t it equally fair to charge that she is still guilty of illicit Pharmaceutical gains ……. even up till just recently when she just sold her “conflict of interest” shares?  You won’t hear as much about this from the “drive by media” and the left as you did about Cheney because it is a different ox being Gored.  Maybe we should demand that she contribute those ill begotten gains on Big Pharmaceutical to children’s relief.    STORY HERE

Advertisements

War On Terror – Bumper Sticker

wot-not.gif John Edwards like Joe Biden here has had a lot to say about the war on terror.  Most recently it has been about how the War on Terror of George Bush is really a sham and designed for political purposes and NOT to make America safer (see below).  So John Edwards can vote for and claim repeatedly that he will be behind the “War on Terror” until the end and suddenly he is another Democrat getting in the race for the nomination and everything he said before is of no account and that makes Bush the one that is playing politics.  Sheesh!

“The core of this presidency has been a political doctrine that George Bush calls the ‘Global War on Terror.’ He has used this doctrine like a sledgehammer to justify the worst abuses and biggest mistakes of his administration… The war on terror is a slogan designed only for politics, not a strategy to make America safe. It’s a bumper sticker, not a plan. It has damaged our alliances and weakened our standing in the world… The ‘war’ metaphor has also failed because it exaggerates the role of only one instrument of American power–the military… we must move beyond the idea of a war on terror.”  …. John Edwards

Lets examine where John Edwards has been on this issue when other sympathies prevailed in the electorate.

  1. Voted in 2002 to authorize the invasion of Iraq
  2. At DNC Convention in 2004 in acceptance speech for Vice Presidency: “We are a nation at war, global war on terror.”
  3. Democratic Platform in 2004 that Edwards ran for President on:  Today, we face three great challenges above all others – first, to win the global war against terror; second, to stop the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons; and third, to promote democracy and freedom around the world, starting with a peaceful and stable Iraq.

Now up to recently when the left blogosphere started panning the use of the words “war on terror” even the left portion of the Democratic party largely separated their view of the War in Iraq from that of the “War on Terror,” but Mr. Edwards now is stepping out with a disingenuous change of rhetoric to fit with the base of the Democratic party.  Ok, so be it, but who is using the words “war on terror” for political purposes.

I would like to add that even when Edwards was trying to sound strong on the “war on terror” including the war in Iraq, we come to find from his campaign manager (Bob Shrum) of 2004 when Edwards was running for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency that both John and his wife were against casting his vote in the Senate for the War in Iraq, but his political consultants (in Shrum’s own words here paragraph 5) prevailed on Edwards that he needed to vote for the resolution, which of course he did and so I wonder how much more political you can get with this issue than to change your vote for the war resolution based on your own political needs.

And just one further point, I wonder how we have intercepted so many terrorist plots in the U.S. and world at large and have spared this country from additional attacks so far and for so long if the President is not trying to make America safe as  Edwards claims (his words not mine).  [hmm]

UPDATE:  I wanted to update this post to include a link provided by a commenter “Total Transformation Test” of a video of John Edwards stating that he will support the “War on Terror” to the end. here

Joe Biden Wants War (again)

joe-biden.jpg So, Senator Joe Biden (D-Del) calls for the use of troops in Darfur here and doing so without checking with Jimmy Carter relative to what Jimmy calls a “pre-emptive war” here meaning that the security of the United States is not directly threatened.  This is the same Joe Biden that is against the troop surge in Iraq even though he spent most of the past few years complaining that we need more troops in Iraq here.  There’s nothing like the administration saying that it was going to actually do something to cause a Democrat to change his mind about its’ advisability.

He thinks we should commit our military to Darfur yet we should pull out of Iraq even though he voted in favor of the “Authorization to Use Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.”  When asked about his vote to go to war in Iraq he lied here (last paragraph)  when he said “remember what the resolution said, Tim (Russert), it didn’t say ‘go to war.’ It said, ‘Mr. President, if you can show these things, then you can use force.”

How convenient for someone that wants to run away from his vote.  The only problem is it doesn’t say that.  His vote to go war was his vote on Public Law 107-243 and Section 3 is the relevant section which says that the President has 48 hours “AFTER” the starting the use of “FORCE” to report to Congress that he was unable to solve matters diplomatically, which the Bush administration complied with.  Read it here yourself and then tell me that the authorization was CONDITIONAL therefore requiring the President to report to Congress before going to war.  Everybody knew that Joe was an admitted plagiarist, but now we know he is a bold faced liar.   Hmmmmmm……….  

It seems to me he wants troops in Darfur (like many Democrats and Celebrities) and is using the same arguments that were valid for war in Iraq.  Biden says that he supports it because of the killing of 200,000 people (which he calls Genocide).  If that is grounds for sending troops (sorry Mr. Carter about prohibition of a Pre-Emptive War) then he should have been for troops going to Iraq on the same humanitarian grounds as this.  Saddam had killed literally hundreds of thousands of people himself.  Read here for details on the deaths under Saddam.

So here you have another “pretender” to the Presidency that has changed his tune on the war more often than a symphony orchestra getting ready to play a concert.  It is amazing how declaring for the nomination for the Presidency can evoke such strange behavior. So now you have a call by the Democrats for use of Military Force in Darfur, and in so doing contradict all the complaints they have made against the Bush Administration for going to war in Iraq (which many Democrats voted for).

The Misery Index

jimmy-carter.jpg From the man that brought us the “real life” understanding of the Misery Index (as first articulated by economist Arthur Okun), Jimmy Carter has now declared that George Bush is the “worst President ever”…….whewww!  He has been waiting for 25 years with hopes to transfer that title to some Republican.  His only options have been Ronald Reagan, Bush the 1st and Bush the 2nd.  For those of you that don’t know, Okun came up with a term that first took on popular meaning during the Carter Administration.  It was called the “Misery Index.”  This is an economic indicator that measures how badly Americans are suffering economically.  Carter blew this index off the chart.  The index was formulated by taking the inflation rate and unemployment rate and adding them together.  Some have added the interest rate to this to further quantify the impact of economic suffering.  When you combine the Misery Index and inflation rate during the Carter Administration you establish an aggregate that likely will never be reached again.

Under the Carter administration the Okun Misery Index was 16.27 (worst ever).  Under G.W. Bush during the first term it reached 7.98 and at this time for the 12 month period ending April, 2007 for the inflation rate and the February, 2007 unemployment rate Bush’s Misery Index has dropped to 6.8.  (the lower being the better)  The best rate ever since the numbers have been kept is the Eisenhower Administration (6.26) and the second best is essentially a tie between GW Bush and the Johnson Administration.

So by the standard that most Presidents are measured by the “voters” Carter is the worst President ever, but I suspect that he is trying to change the subject to the war in Iraq which I would like to call the war on terror.

Let me state here that I vividly remember the day our embassy was invaded on 11/4/1979 and Americans were taken hostages in Iran and held for 444 days under the Carter administration.  It was this “crisis” that launched Ted Koppel and the program Night Line.  I remember being glued to Night Line every night throughout the crisis.  Each program was opened with Day 35, Day 36, Day 37, ………Day 421, etc.  On almost every broadcast the program stated that the administration “said today that a military option is not on the table.”  Well guess what, Iran realized that they had nothing to fear from Uncle Sam and kept the hostages until the next big event.  The Hostages were released on 1/20/1981.  Do you know what occurred on that day?  It was the inauguration of Ronald Reagan.  I remember watching the inauguration on a split screen broadcast with the boarding of the hostages on an airplane to return to the US on the other half of the screen.  Yes folks, the Iranians were not going to allow one day to pass under the Reagan administration while they held U.S. Citizens as hostages.

It is also my firm conviction that (as some say) our past foreign policy has a lot to do with our situation today and that I STRONGLY BELIEVE it is the way Carter handled the Iranian Hostage Crisis that has had a tremendous amount to do with the problems we have with Iran today in particular and with terrorist in general.  They learned that we could be intimidated.

Carter also stated that we have now endorsed the use of the “pre-emptive war” which means to attack a country when our own security is not directly threatened.  Who is he kidding, we have done this often and recently by Clinton in Kosovo, so he is lying here and knows it and so are others that claim that Iraq is the first time it has happened.  But there should be no surprise here that Carter is against “pre-emptive action” to protect American interest when he was too timid to use military action after the terrorist or terrorist countries struck us first.

So when you add the Misery Index to the Carter legacy of the Middle East I have to say the Carter still holds on to the title of WORST President ever although he would like to avoid that label.  In short, no doubt the Carter Presidency is a major contributor to the United States problems today in the Middle East and I am not surprised he is eager to transfer some of that blame on others.

UPDATE 5/21/2007: Jimmy Carter took the opportunity to clarify his remarks concerning President Bush today.  He said that his comments over the weekend about the Bush administration were “careless.”  Carter said he was answering a question about the foreign policy of former President Richard Nixon, as compared with that of the current administration. He said he wasn’t comparing the Bush administration with all those through American history.  This is a bunch of crap as though he was comparing bad foreign policy (of Bush) to bad foreign policy (of Nixon).  If Nixon was understood to be a good President about anything it was considered to be Foreign Policy.  After all to absolutely everyone’s surprise he opened up dialogue with China.  Also in his own words he said “of all time” not just versus Nixon, so again the heat is on and he is lying while trying to dodge the reaction to his comments.  I’m not buying it.  It is time for Jimmy to head for the pasture and fade away.

Freedom of Speech (only for the Left)

rush-limbaugh.jpg If you live in Baltimore and you engage in vandalism and defacement of property you might receive praise from Robert Murrow, a spokesman for the city’s Department of Public Works.  Gee I remember when city officials were the first to condemn the defacement of private property.  But I guess it is ok now so long as it is related to the destruction of Conservative matters.  You see this praise came after a vandal threw a can of paint on a billboard advertising the Rush Limbaugh show.  Just what did Mr. Murrow say about the antic?  He said, “It looks like they took globs of paint and threw it on his face. It looks great. It did my heart good,”  Well if you are the advertising agency that owns the Billboard you can’t expect to receive “equal protection under the law” in Baltimore now can you? 

My opinion is that the left have become the defacers of society in general and this is just another piece of their work and city officials approval thereof.  Don’t look for any arrests due to this vandalism, but maybe they will issue a civic award.  On the other hand maybe this is approved behavior now, so I encourage you to forward this post to your friends in Baltimore urging them to deface property of the Baltimore Department of Public Works.  Apparently they won’t mind.  But maybe on the other hand freedom of speech is only for the liberals and their pets that they like to protect such as the Jihadists.

MORE: Baltimore Sun


December 2017
M T W T F S S
« Jul    
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Blog Stats

  • 7,379 hits